2021 IL App (2d) 200462-U 

No. 2-20-0462 

Order filed September 22, 2021

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23(b) and is not precedent 

except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(l).

______________________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

SECOND DISTRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ 

PHILIP ROBINSON and ) Appeal from the Circuit Court

BEVERLY ROBINSON, ) of Winnebago County. 

) 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) 

) 

v. ) No. 14-L-232 

) 

TODD D. ALEXANDER, M.D., ) Honorable 

) Donna R. Honzel, 

Defendant-Appellee. ) Judge, Presiding.

______________________________________________________________________________ 

JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the judgment of the court.

Presiding Justice Bridges and Justice Jorgensen concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in (1) barring a controlled expert witness

from testifying regarding defendant’s alleged deviation from the standard of care, 

(2) barring a controlled expert witness from testifying regarding an undisclosed 

opinion on causation and injuries, and (3) refusing to instruct the jury in accordance 

with Illinois Pattern Jury Instruction, Civil, No. 30.23. Affirmed.

¶ 2 Plaintiffs, Philip Robinson and Beverly Robinson, sued defendant, Todd D. Alexander, 

M.D., for medical negligence and loss of consortium, respectively. Following trial, the jury 

returned a verdict in favor of defendant and against plaintiffs. Plaintiffs appeal the judgment on 
2021 IL App (2d) 200462-U 

- 2 - 

the jury’s verdict and the trial court’s denial of their posttrial motion. For the reasons set forth 

below, we affirm. 

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 The lawsuit arose out of a March 13, 2013, multilevel cervical spine surgery that defendant, 

a neurosurgeon, performed on Philip. We recount Philip’s medical history as derived from the trial 

testimony and exhibits. At the time of the surgery, Philip was 69 years old. There was no dispute 

that Philip had an approximately 20-year history of neck pain. Over the years, Philip was treated 

with physical therapy, chiropractic adjustments, and steroid injections. A 2010 magnetic resonance 

imaging (MRI) of Philip’s spine showed a bony overgrowth pinching the nerves in the spinal canal. 

Philip’s medical history also included a 2006 back surgery, performed by defendant, and a 2008 

left rotator cuff surgery.

¶ 5 In early 2013, Philip reported neck pain radiating down his right arm, elbow pain, and 

numbness and tingling in his right hand. His primary care physician ordered an MRI of Philip’s 

spine and an electromyogram (EMG) to test Philip’s hand and arm muscles for signs of nerve 

injury. A January 28, 2013, MRI revealed cervical spondylosis (neck arthritis). The neurologist 

who conducted a February 5, 2013, EMG, Younghua Zhang, M.D., found “electrophysiologic 

evidence of a right ulnar nerve entrapment neuropathy at elbow with no evidence of axonal loss” 

and “no electrophysiologic evidence of right C5-T1 radiculopathy.” Philip’s primary care 

physician referred Philip to defendant. 

¶ 6 Following a February 21, 2013, examination, defendant reported that Philip “has a right 

C8 radiculopathy secondary to C7-T1 foraminal stenosis. This is not an ulnar nerve neuropathy 

and the EMG result is spurious.” Defendant explained his diagnosis of a radiculopathy (a neck 

problem) as opposed to ulnar nerve neuropathy (an elbow problem). First, Philip’s complaint of 
2021 IL App (2d) 200462-U 

- 3 - 

pain in the neck that radiated down his arm was not characteristic of an ulnar nerve problem. 

Rather, he testified, an ulnar nerve problem “would usually have the pain centered at the elbow 

and then go from there down the arm.” Second, Philip reported that slouching forward relieved the 

symptoms and standing tall worsened the symptoms. This report was suggestive of “the problem 

being in his neck” and “would not be consistent with something in the elbow.”

¶ 7 Moreover, defendant testified that, upon examination, Philip did not show signs of ulnar 

nerve entrapment. The “Tinel” test (tapping on his elbow) did not cause Philip to feel a “zinger” 

down his arm—a typical sign of a pinched nerve in the elbow. Nor did Philip exhibit a loss of 

sensation on the side of his ring finger, or “splitting of the sensation in the fingers.” Defendant 

examined Philip’s hand and found atrophy (wasting away) of the first dorsal interossei muscle—

consistent with nerve root compression in Philip’s neck. Philip also had weakness in his ability to 

spread the fingers of his right hand.

¶ 8 Regarding his review of Philip’s January 28, 2013, MRI, defendant testified that Philip had 

profound compression at the C7-T1 vertabral level encompassing the C8 nerve root. Defendant 

concluded that this condition fit with Philip’s clinical presentation of cervical radiculopathy, and 

not with ulnar nerve neuropathy. The MRI images also showed bone spurs at levels C5-6 and C6-

7 sticking out in front, narrow and collapsed disks, and bone spurs projecting toward the spinal 

cord. In addition, the MRI showed significant pinching of nerves on the right side—indicative of 

a neck problem. Defendant acknowledged that he did not compare the January 28, 2013, MRI with 

the 2010 MRI of Philip’s spine. 

¶ 9 Defendant diagnosed C8 radiculopathy and degenerative spondylosis at levels C5-6 

through C6-7. Defendant recommended multilevel cervical spine surgery. Defendant testified that 
2021 IL App (2d) 200462-U 

- 4 - 

he explained to Philip the general risks of surgery as well as the specific risks of the operation, 

including nerve injury and construct or fusion failure. Philip signed a general consent form.

¶ 10 The subsequent March 13, 2013, surgery included “significant” bone removal to free the 

nerve root and placement of a plate and bone graft to stabilize the spine. Defendant placed screws 

into Philip’s C7 and T1 vertebrae from the back and connected them with a rod. This placement is 

referred to as the construct. Defendant also removed disc material and a bone spur from the front 

of Philip’s spine and used screws and a plate to stabilize the area. Philip was prescribed pain 

medication and physical therapy and given a cervical collar to wear around his neck following the 

surgery. 

¶ 11 Philip suffered post-surgical complications. His neck and arm pain remained. His right arm 

was worse immediately after the surgery, still tingled, and was painful and weak. His left arm 

eventually grew weak, and Philip reported problems with his hands. After an April 11, 2013, 

follow-up examination, defendant ordered x-rays and ultimately a computerized tomography (CT) 

scan to explore the status of the surgical fusion. In reviewing the April 15, 2013, CT scan, 

defendant testified that he detected “significant problems in relation to the subsidence and kyphotic 

angulation that was occurring and that screw at C7 pulling out”—all of which were signs that the 

construct was failing. On April 22, 2013, defendant advised Philip that surgical intervention was 

necessary. In response to Philip’s inquiry about an alternative to surgery, defendant advised of the 

possibility that the condition could resolve on its own if Philip remained in the cervical collar. 

¶ 12 Philip sought a second opinion the next day, on April 23, 2013, with Marc Soriano, M.D., 

a neurosurgeon. Dr. Soriano testified that he examined Philip, took a history, and reviewed the CT 

scan. Dr. Soriano noted that Philip had complete atrophy of his intrinsic hand muscles, could not 

grasp with his right hand or split his fingers, and had no finger or wrist extension on the right.
2021 IL App (2d) 200462-U 

- 5 - 

Philip’s hands were nonfunctional. Dr. Soriano further noted numbness of Philip’s left thumb and 

increasing severe neck pain. Given the symptoms on both the right and left hands, Dr. Soriano was 

concerned that Philip had a progressive situation with something pushing on Philip’s nerve roots

or spinal cord. From his review of the CT scan, Dr. Soriano saw that Philip had a significant 

fracture and “slip-off” of C7 and was concerned that the screw could move further and damage the 

nerve roots or spinal cord. Dr. Soriano referred Philip to Russ Nockels, M.D., a neurosurgeon 

specializing in complex spinal disorders. 

¶ 13 That same day, on April 23, 2013, Dr. Nockels examined Philip and ordered imaging 

studies. Dr. Nockels identified vertebral fractures, concluded that the posterior hardware had 

failed, and that kyphosis (a forward bending) had developed. Dr. Nockels advised that a second 

surgery was necessary. 

¶ 14 Dr. Nockels performed the second surgery on May 3, 2013. The surgical plan was to 

stabilize the spine and address ongoing compression of the nerves. His goal was to reduce the 

kyphosis and place new hardware to prevent recurrence. Dr. Nockels testified that he reopened the 

previous incision and removed the screws and rods in the back that were completely disengaged. 

He removed additional bone to view the nerves and confirm no compression as he straightened 

Philip’s spine. Dr. Nockels placed implants on both sides of Philip’s spine to prevent development 

of spinal deformity and placed bone grafts in the front of both sides of Philip’s spine. For additional 

protection, Dr. Nockels placed Philip in a halo device—a metal ring attached to the skull that rested 

on a vest. Philip gained some strength after the surgery and retained the realignment of his spine. 

¶ 15 Philip’s right hand remained dysfunctional; Philip was unable to open the hand at this point. 

Dr. Nockels referred Philip to Michael Bednar, M.D., a hand surgeon, for a tendon transfer. 
2021 IL App (2d) 200462-U 

- 6 - 

Following the January 2014, tendon transfer surgery and physical therapy, the functionality in 

Philip’s right hand improved somewhat.

¶ 16 In subsequent years, follow-up examinations reflected that Philip continued to experience 

pain in the back of his neck, “residual numbness in the right greater than his left arm and into the 

thumb,” bilateral upper extremity weakness, fine motor dysfunction, and the likelihood of

permanent neurologic dysfunction in his right hand. Philip testified that he can no longer perform 

basic activities, such as buttoning his shirt, zipping his pants, or putting on socks.

¶ 17 Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on July 28, 2014. Dr. Alexander was the sole defendant in the 

operative complaint (the first amended complaint). Plaintiffs alleged that defendant was negligent 

in not consulting regarding the February 5, 2013, EMG and/or order follow-up testing, not 

informing or offering Philip treatment options for ulnar nerve entrapment, not informing Philip of 

the risks of multilevel cervical spine surgery, negligently performing the surgery, and not timely 

diagnosing and recommending appropriate treatment for the postoperative failure of the construct. 

¶ 18 A. Pretrial

¶ 19 The parties engaged in extensive discovery and pretrial motion practice, as discussed in 

relevant part below. 

¶ 20 1. Rule 213(f)(3) Controlled Expert Witnesses

¶ 21 Plaintiffs disclosed the following physicians as controlled expert witnesses pursuant to 

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 213(f)(3) (eff. Jan. 1, 2007): (1) Marc A. Levin, M.D., a 

neurosurgeon; (2) Neil Allen, M.D, a neurologist; and (3) Mary Elizabeth Jensen, M.D., a 

diagnostic and interventional neuroradiologist. Defendant disclosed the following physicians as 

controlled expert witnesses (in addition to defendant) pursuant to Rule 213(f)(3): (1) Andrew G. 
2021 IL App (2d) 200462-U 

- 7 - 

Chenelle, M.D., a neurosurgeon; (2) Dane M. Chetkovich, M.D., a neurologist; and (3) Joel R. 

Meyer, M.D., a neuroradiologist.

¶ 22 Pertinent to our analysis are the pretrial disclosures and depositions of two of plaintiffs’ 

controlled expert witnesses—Dr. Levin and Dr. Allen. 

¶ 23 a. Dr. Levin

¶ 24 Plaintiffs’ Rule 213(f)(3) disclosure of Dr. Levin provided in relevant part:

“Dr. Levin is expected to testify that nothing in the EMG results appears to be 

‘spurious’ or inaccurate. The results of the EMG appear to accurately reflect an entrapped 

ulnar nerve at the elbow which is consistent with Mr. Robinson’s clinical complaints of 

right arm pain, numbness and weakness. If Dr. Alexander believed the results of the EMG 

were ‘spurious,’ the standard of care required him to contact and consult with the physician 

who performed the EMG to discuss his concerns. If consultation did not resolve Dr. 

Alexander’s concerns, the standard of care required ordering additional testing before 

dismissing the clinical exam consistent with the results of the EMG in favor of multi-level 

spine surgery. More likely than not, had the results of the EMG been acted upon or more 

thoroughly investigated, any concern, legitimate or not, regarding the EMG results would 

have been resolved, and a reasonably careful neurosurgeon would have pursued treatment 

of the ulnar nerve instead of multi-level spine surgery.

* * *

Dr. Levin will opine that the aforesaid negligent acts or omissions were a proximate 

cause of permanent injuries to Philip Robinson, including pain and suffering, disability and 

disfigurement.” 
2021 IL App (2d) 200462-U 

- 8 - 

¶ 25 Dr. Levin testified at his discovery deposition that defendant deviated from the standard of 

care by failing to consult with Dr. Zhang regarding the EMG, disregarding the EMG results, and 

proceeding to surgery. However, Dr. Levin acknowledged that he did not know what would have

been said in the consultation. Specifically:

“Q: I take it you don’t know because you haven’t spoken to the electrophysiologist 

and his deposition hasn’t been taken, but you don’t know what the electrophysiologist may 

have said had he been contacted by Dr. Alexander; is that fair?

A. How could I know that?

Q: You can’t right?

A. Correct.

Q. It would be speculative for you to say what the electrophysiologist would have 

said, true?

A. Absolutely.” 

¶ 26 Dr. Levin added that, if the consultation did not resolve defendant’s concerns, the standard 

of care required him to order additional tests, including, at a minimum, a second EMG, before 

disregarding the EMG in favor of multilevel spinal surgery. However, he did not have an opinion 

as to what a repeat EMG would have shown. Dr. Levin further testified that the ulnar nerve 

entrapment alone, or the ulnar nerve entrapment in conjunction with a C8 nerve root problem, 

could have been the explanation for Philip’s right arm problems. To make this determination, 

according to Dr. Levin, defendant should have performed surgery on the ulnar nerve before 

proceeding to multilevel spine surgery. 

¶ 27 b. Dr. Allen
2021 IL App (2d) 200462-U 

- 9 - 

¶ 28 Plaintiffs’ Rule 213(f)(3) disclosure of Dr. Allen provided in relevant part that he was 

expected to testify on issues of causation and injuries and the matters set forth in his attached 

March 9, 2017, report. The report recounted Philip’s medical history based upon Dr. Allen’s 

review of records. He noted that Philip “subscribed to dizziness, hearing loss, heartburn, joint, 

back and neck pain, numbness, depression, sleep disturbance, headaches, anxiety and weakness” 

and “said he has problems with his gait stability.” Dr. Allen also referred to a formal history and 

noted Philip’s description of neck pain and upper extremity issues and the surgeries that had been 

performed. The report further detailed Dr. Allen’s February 27, 2017, examination of Philip and 

noted that “[a]t the time of this examination, there is evidence of nerve damage on the right 

predominantly at C7-T1, particularly on the C7 and C8 nerve roots,” that “[t]he type of changes 

seen would not be seen unless there had been significant evidence of atrophy prior to the time of 

this first surgical procedure that was conducted in March 2013,” and that Philip “denies before the 

March 2013 surgery having atrophy of the hands or being unable to use his right hand ***.” Dr. 

Allen concluded in his report that Philip “is suffering severe disability because of difficulty with 

the use of both his right and left upper extremities, despite the tendon transfer which was 

necessitated as a result of the injuries that were done to his distal right upper extremity.” 

¶ 29 At his discovery deposition, Dr. Allen was questioned regarding his review of Philip’s 

medical records and his February 27, 2017, neurological examination of Philip. Dr. Allen testified 

that Philip subscribed to dizziness and other conditions. He was asked, “Fair to say that dizziness 

would not be attributable to any alleged nerve root injury?” Dr. Allen responded: “It wouldn’t be 

attributable to a nerve root injury. It would be attributed to any type of a cervical derangement 

because that’s called cervicogenic vertigo and it’s seen in people who have feelings and 

perceptions of loss of balance or instability who have neck problems because of what’s known as 
2021 IL App (2d) 200462-U 

- 10 - 

the tectospinal pathway *** which goes from the brainstem down to the cervical spine and gives 

the sense of position in space.” Dr. Allen acknowledged that there are other causes of dizziness. 

Dr. Allen further testified that Philip reported problems with his gait stability but that there was no 

report of falling down at any time in the months prior to the examination.

¶ 30 Dr. Allen also testified at his discovery deposition that he frequently interprets EMGs and 

that the February 5, 2013, EMG showed electrophysiological evidence of a right ulnar nerve 

entrapment neuropathy at the elbow with no evidence of axonal loss. He explained that the absence 

of evidence of axonal loss means that the neuropathy could reverse on its own. When questioned 

as to whether EMGs are reliable in detecting electrophysiological evidence of a right C5-T1 

radiculopathy, Dr. Allen responded, “If they’re motor. If they’re sensory, they’re not as reliable, 

and they’re not reliable in the first 14 days—10 to 14 days after injury is the other thing that you 

have to know.”

¶ 31 Subsequently, at his evidence deposition (which proceeded six days before trial), Dr. Allen 

testified regarding Philip’s report of dizziness. He explained that dizziness in this context was not 

related to any cervical root injury. Rather, “[i]t’s due to damage to the supporting structures, which 

cause changes within the structure of the spinal cord itself and the messages being relayed between 

the position of the legs in space and the message that’s being sent to the brain through a pathway, 

a fancy pathway called the tectospinal pathway.” Over defendant’s Rule 213 objection, Dr. Allen 

identified the condition as cervicogenic vertigo and stated that “it could be accounted for by the 

spine surgery and by the loss of blood supply to the spinal cord.” In this regard, Dr. Allen 

concluded: “It is my opinion with a reasonable degree of medical and surgical certainty that the 

patient might or could have cervicogenic vertigo as a result of the cervical procedure that disrupted 
2021 IL App (2d) 200462-U 

- 11 - 

the stability of the cervical spine during the procedure of March and the subsequent procedure by 

Dr. Nockels in 2013.”

¶ 32 However, Dr. Allen acknowledged that he tested Philip’s gait and station (ability to stand 

up stably) during the neurological examination and that they were normal. Moreover, the following 

testimony was elicited:

“Q. And you would agree that you did not diagnose Mr. Robinson with cervical 

vertigo, true?

A. Cervicogenic vertigo?

Q. Yeah, cervicogenic vertigo.

A. I didn’t diagnose him at the time I saw him because he wasn’t complaining of it 

then. 

A. And you never diagnosed him. You didn’t diagnose him at the first time or the 

second time that you saw him. You did not make that diagnosis of this patient, true?

A. True.

Q. And when you first saw him, he did make a complaint to you of some dizziness, 

true?

A. Yes.

Q. And we already talked about the examination of his gait and station were normal 

when you saw him, correct?

A. Yes, we talked about it.” 

¶ 33 Dr. Allen also testified at his evidence deposition about the EMG findings and the absence 

of electrophysiologic evidence of a right C5-T1 radiculopathy. Plaintiffs’ counsel questioned Dr. 

Allen at the evidence deposition as follows: “[A]s a neurologist who has been involved with EMGs 
2021 IL App (2d) 200462-U 

- 12 - 

over the years in your career, do you occasionally get requested by the ordering physician or some 

subsequent physician taking care of the patient to answer questions about an EMG interpretation 

that you’ve given?” Over defendant’s Rule 213 objection, Dr. Allen responded affirmatively and

subsequently explained: 

“If I were performing the test and I was asked for my interpretation, I would just 

simply tell them what I said in the report. If they asked me what it meant, I would provide 

an interpretation of what it meant, I would provide an interpretation of what it means. If I 

examined the patient and I read the report, I would give them my interpretation of both my 

examination as well as my report, my review of the report.”

¶ 34 2. Motions in Limine

¶ 35 The parties filed numerous motions in limine. Relevant to this appeal are defendant’s 

motion in limine Nos. 10 and 14. 

¶ 36 a. Motion in Limine No. 10

¶ 37 Defendant filed a “Motion In Limine To Bar Criticisms Related To Any Alleged Failure 

To Consult An Electrophysiologist Or Physician Regarding The EMG Completed Prior To 

Surgery” (motion in limine No. 10). The motion sought to preclude Dr. Levin from testifying as to 

his opinion that defendant was negligent in failing to consult another physician regarding the EMG 

results and/or order follow-up testing. Defendant argued that the opinion was based upon 

unsubstantiated speculation. Indeed, Dr. Levin testified that he did not know what the physician 

would have said in the consultation and acknowledged that it would be speculative to assert what 

would have been said. Accordingly, defendant argued that plaintiffs could not establish that the 

alleged deviation from the standard of care was causally related to Philip’s injuries.
2021 IL App (2d) 200462-U 

- 13 - 

¶ 38 Plaintiffs responded that Dr. Allen’s testimony at his discovery deposition established the 

causal link, i.e., “the evidence of what a reasonably careful neurologist who interprets EMGs 

would have concluded—that this was a true ulnar nerve neuropathy that was reversible and would 

have informed Defendant Alexander accordingly.” They cited Dr. Allen’s testimony regarding his 

interpretation of EMGs in his practice and his discussion of Dr. Zhang’s EMG findings. Thus, 

according to plaintiffs, consistent with Dr. Levin’s Rule 213(f)(3) disclosure, a reasonably careful 

neurosurgeon would have performed ulnar nerve surgery before contemplating spine surgery, and, 

as Dr. Levin testified, the ulnar nerve surgery more likely than not would have resolved most, if 

not all, of Philip’s right arm problems. 

¶ 39 During argument on the motion in limine, the trial court stated that there was no disclosed 

opinion linking the alleged failure to consult and Philip’s injuries. Specifically, the trial court 

stated, Dr. Allen “doesn’t tie up that, had an electrophysiologist been consulted, that he would 

have said anything other than a whole lot of things including that it’s an ulnar neuropathy that 

could reverse itself because it showed no axonal loss ***.” Indeed, Dr. Allen “never definitively 

said if there would have been anything different from the consult.” The trial court, however,

reserved ruling pending review of Dr. Allen’s evidence deposition testimony. The trial court 

subsequently entered an order granting defendant’s motion in limine number 10 “unless plaintiffs 

can direct the Court to a disclosed expert opinion linking up the criticism with expert testimony.” 

¶ 40 b. Motion in Limine No. 14

¶ 41 Defendant filed a “Motion In Limine To Bar Any Testimony Or Argument That Dr. 

Alexander Caused: (1) Any Injury To Philip Robinson’s Lower Extremities, (2) A Propensity To 

Fall, Or (3) Dizziness.” Defendant argued that plaintiffs did not disclose any expert witness to 
2021 IL App (2d) 200462-U 

- 14 - 

opine that Philip had any such injury or condition as a result of the surgery. Thus, defendant sought 

to bar the testimony at trial.

¶ 42 Plaintiffs responded that there was ample evidence for a jury to conclude that the March 

13, 2013, surgery was a cause of Philip’s “interrelated problems with dizziness, propensity to fall 

and lower extremities issues.” Namely, Dr. Allen noted Philip’s history of dizziness and problems 

with gait stability in his report attached to the Rule 213(f)(3) disclosure of Dr. Allen. Also, 

plaintiffs and other lay witnesses testified in their depositions regarding Philip’s dizziness and 

propensity to fall, and Philip testified that he did not have these problems before the March 13, 

2013, surgery. Further, Philip was noted as being an “increased fall risk” on April 25, 2013, before 

his surgery with Dr. Nockels.

¶ 43 Following argument, the trial court granted defendant’s motion in limine No. 14, “unless 

plaintiffs can direct the Court to a disclosed expert opinion linking up the criticism with expert 

testimony.” The trial court reasoned that, in discovery, Dr. Allen merely identified the condition 

of cervicogenic vertigo and stated that it may accompany dizziness or loss of balance but did not 

relate the condition to the claims against defendant. 

¶ 44 B. Trial

¶ 45 Both parties label this case “a battle of the experts.” In addition to the testimony of the 

treating physicians as discussed above, the parties’ controlled expert witnesses testified at trial. 

We recount their testimony. 

¶ 46 1. Plaintiffs’ Controlled Expert Witnesses

¶ 47 Plaintiffs presented the testimony of Dr. Jensen, Dr. Levin, and Dr. Allen (by way of his 

videotaped evidence deposition).

¶ 48 a. Dr. Jensen
2021 IL App (2d) 200462-U 

- 15 - 

¶ 49 Dr. Jensen testified regarding the results of Philip’s 2010 and 2013 MRIs. She explained 

the images, compared the MRIs, and testified that there was no significant difference between 

them. The imaging displayed cervical spondylosis, compression into the spinal canal with bony 

overgrowth, multiple bone spurs, and bone-on-bone degenerative changes at C5-6, C6-7, and C6-

7-T1. Dr. Jensen explained that the 2013 MRI did not reflect a significant change in Philip’s 

condition—“there may have been a touch more compression at the C7-T1 posterior osteophyte.”

In addition, Dr. Jensen described the March 13, 2013, surgery as involving substantial removal of 

the vertebral body and other bone.

¶ 50 b. Dr. Levin

¶ 51 Dr. Levin opined that defendant deviated from the standard of care by (1) failing to inform 

Philip of treatment options for ulnar nerve entrapment instead of multilevel cervical spine surgery; 

(2) performing surgery that was not indicated; (3) not informing Philip of the risks of and 

alternatives to multilevel cervical spine surgery; (4) performing multilevel cervical spine surgery;

and (5) not timely diagnosing and recommending appropriate treatment for postoperative failure 

of the construct. Dr. Levin further opined that defendant’s professional negligence was a proximate 

cause of Philip’s injuries.

¶ 52 Dr. Levin explained that some of the problems about which Philip complained could have 

been caused by ulnar nerve entrapment and that defendant’s identification of the EMG results as 

“spurious” was not reasonably careful. He opined that nonsurgical or minor surgical treatment or 

some combination of these treatments of Philip’s ulnar nerve entrapment likely would have 

resolved Philip’s right arm issues. Dr. Levin further agreed with Dr. Jensen that there was no

significant change between the 2010 and 2013 MRIs. During that time period, Philip was not 

having neck, arm, or spinal cord problems. Based upon these facts, Dr. Levin’s impression was 
2021 IL App (2d) 200462-U 

- 16 - 

that “a neurosurgeon would minimize treatment just to the area where the symptoms are”—here, 

“at the one level at C7-T1.” Dr. Levin acknowledged that the symptoms Philip reported to 

defendant in March 2013 were consistent with cervical radiculopathy.

¶ 53 c. Dr. Allen

¶ 54 Dr. Allen opined that, based upon his training and experience, examination of Philip, and 

review of Philip’s medical records, Philip “is suffering from severe disability due to the difficulty 

with the use of both his right and his left arms, upper extremities.” He further opined that the cause 

of that disability “was direct nerve injuries on both the right and the left side either at or 

postsurgically [the March 13, 2013, surgery] due to collapse of the vertebra and damage to the 

nerve roots.” Dr. Allen explained that the greatest damage was to the C8 nerve root—“the area in 

which the collapse occurred, and the hardware itself caused the direct compression and damage to 

the nerve roots.” Dr. Allen opined that all of Philip’s impairments occurred in connection with the 

injury to nerve roots as a result of the March 13, 2013, surgery, were a direct result of the surgery, 

and are all permanent. Dr. Allen explained that Philip suffered from disability due to difficulty in 

the use of his upper extremities resulting from “machinations” that occurred immediately or shortly 

after, but not during, the March 13, 2013, surgery. 

¶ 55 In response to questioning as to whether an EMG is an objective test and reliable for 

diagnosing ulnar nerve neuropathy, Dr. Allen responded, “In the hands of the best examiner, it’s 

the best test.” Dr. Allen further testified that EMGs are reliable in detecting damage to the motor 

component of nerves. The treatment options for ulnar nerve entrapment include prescribing 

physical therapy, guarding the nerve by using an elbow guard or a hockey elbow protector, or 

performing a surgical procedure producing ulnar nerve decompression by moving the nerve. The 
2021 IL App (2d) 200462-U 

- 17 - 

surgical option involves removing the bone on the side of the nerve, moving the nerve up to the 

front, and burying it between the muscle groups.

¶ 56 Dr. Allen acknowledged that longstanding chronic cervical pathology can cause muscle 

atrophy and that Philip’s report of neck pain radiating down the arm is unlikely to be consistent 

with ulnar neuropathy. Dr. Allen also acknowledged that the negative Tinel test and the absence 

of the “classic” finding of split sensation in the ring finger pointed away from a diagnosis of ulnar 

neuropathy. 

¶ 57 2. Defendant’s Controlled Expert Witnesses

¶ 58 Defendant presented the testimony of Dr. Meyer, Dr. Chenelle, and Dr. Chetkovich. 

¶ 59 a. Dr. Meyer

¶ 60 Dr. Meyer prepared a PowerPoint presentation of the relevant images of Philip’s spine. 

Regarding the 2010 MRI, Dr. Meyer identified severely narrowed disc spaces at levels C2-5, 

including points where the bones touched, and described bony overgrowth in the front of C5-6 and 

severe bone-on-bone degenerative disease at C6-7. In addition, he identified significant disease at 

C7-T1, which he described as a “rock” sitting in the spinal canal, and bony overgrowth touching 

the spinal cord that could have been impacting the right C8 nerve root. Reviewing the 2013 

presurgical MRI, Dr. Meyer observed that Philip’s disease was “worse.” Philip had significant 

cervical spondylosis, severe disc space narrowing, and bone-on-bone degenerative disease at C5-

6, C6-7 and a component at C7-T1. This condition raised the concern of pressure on the nerve root 

and adjacent spinal cord. 

¶ 61 In addition, Dr. Meyer reviewed an intraoperative x-ray taken during the March 13, 2013, 

surgery, Dr. Meyer explained that the radiograph showed that the screws were properly positioned 

and implanted with sufficient depth. Dr. Meyer further opined that an April 15, 2013, CT scan 
2021 IL App (2d) 200462-U 

- 18 - 

showed failure of Philip’s bones, not failure of the hardware. He explained that the hardware had 

moved down and back as a result of the failure and fracture of Philip’s bones.

¶ 62 b. Dr. Chenelle

¶ 63 Dr. Chenelle testified that the March 13, 2013, surgery was within the standard of care. He 

opined that, based upon Philip’s symptoms, the standard of care did not require defendant to offer 

or discuss treatment options for ulnar nerve entrapment. He cited defendant’s report from the 

February 21, 2013, examination of Philip, which localized the chief complaint as a C8 right-sided 

radiculopathy, and noted Philip’s complaint of pain radiating from the neck down to the arm and 

pain relief when slouching, the absence of split ring finger sensation, and the negative Tinel test. 

Dr. Chenelle further testified that the negative finding of cervical radiculopathy in the EMG report 

was not significant. In Dr. Chenelle’s view, defendant appropriately considered the EMG findings 

when evaluating Philip and clinically correlated Philip’s history, physical examination, and 

imaging studies to reach a reasonable diagnosis—nerve root C8 radiculopathy as a result of 

stenosis at C7-T1. 

¶ 64 Dr. Chenelle also opined that defendant reasonably offered multilevel spine surgery to 

Philip given Philip’s history of chronic neck pain and his report of weakness and pain after months 

of physical therapy and epidural steroid injections. He explained the potential for weakness to 

progress to a point where surgical action would no longer be beneficial. Based upon defendant’s 

account of his discussion with Philip, Dr. Chenelle testified that defendant reasonably obtained 

informed consent for surgery.

¶ 65 Dr. Chenelle further opined that defendant appropriately performed the surgery and timely 

diagnosed and recommended appropriate treatment for the postsurgical complications. He 

explained that it was reasonable for defendant to have removed the amount of bone that he did. 
2021 IL App (2d) 200462-U 

- 19 - 

Dr. Chenelle also opined that the construct failure is infrequent but does not mean that defendant 

did something wrong; constructs fail for unexplained reasons. Construct failure could occur 

because the bone is soft and “the implant starts to telescope into the vertebral body above and 

below”—pulling out screws. He also testified that postoperative weakness in the tricep muscles 

can happen without negligence. Dr. Chenelle further opined that defendant’s postsurgical 

recommendations were reasonable, that Philip’s condition at the April 22, 2013, follow-up 

examination did not constitute an emergency, and that a second surgery on the date would not have 

changed the outcome. 

¶ 66 c. Dr. Chetkovich

¶ 67 Dr. Chetkovich opined that Philip’s symptoms at the time of his February 21, 2013, office 

visit with defendant were attributable to compression of nerves in his neck rather than an elbow 

problem. Dr. Chetkovich addressed the issue of Dr. Zhang’s EMG and nerve conduction studies. 

He testified that Dr. Zhang’s measurements with respect to Philip’s elbow fell within the range of 

normal and that the nerve conduction study did not document an ulnar neuropathy. He explained 

that an EMG is performed by inserting a needle into the muscles of the hand and arm to look for 

signs of nerve injury. Dr. Chetkovich observed that the EMG was limited, as the needles were not 

placed in the muscles up and down Philip’s neck. Thus, the EMG did not rule out a C8 

radiculopathy given the failure to test the appropriate nerves. 

¶ 68 Dr. Chetkovich opined that defendant reached the correct diagnosis of cervical 

radiculopathy. He observed the clinical absence of split sensation in the ring finger during the 

February 21, 2013, examination. With an ulnar neuropathy, 99% of the time, a split sensation 

finding is present. In addition, ulnar neuropathy does not cause neck pain to radiate down the arm 

or a change in symptoms by adjusting the neck. Dr. Chetkovich acknowledged that Philip had 
2021 IL App (2d) 200462-U 

- 20 - 

never reported pain in the elbow or right hand before 2013, despite a long history of neck pain and 

degenerative changes. He also acknowledged that the EMG prior to the March 13, 2013, surgery 

did not show evidence of a C8 nerve root injury, but that a December 2013 EMG showed a C8 

nerve root injury. Dr. Chetkovich recognized that follow-up testing could have been done. 

¶ 69 C. Jury Instruction Conference

¶ 70 At issue is the following damages instruction that plaintiffs tendered pursuant to Illinois 

Pattern Jury Instruction, Civil, No. 30.23 (“Injury from Subsequent Treatment”) (hereinafter IPI 

Civil No. 30.23): 

“If a defendant negligently causes injury to the plaintiff, then the defendant is liable 

not only for the plaintiff’s damages resulting from that injury but is also liable for any 

damages sustained by the plaintiff arising from the efforts of health care providers to treat 

the injury caused by the defendant even if those health care providers were negligent.” 

¶ 71 Following argument at the jury instruction conference, the trial court, citing the Comments 

to IPI Civil No. 30.23, refused the instruction in light of the absence of any testimony that the 

doctors who treated Philip after his March 13, 2013, surgery (Dr. Nockels and Dr. Bednar) caused 

or aggravated Philip’s injuries. 

¶ 72 D. Jury Verdict

¶ 73 On January 24, 2020, the jury returned a general verdict in favor of defendant and against 

plaintiffs. The trial court entered judgment on the verdict that day. 

¶ 74 E. Posttrial

¶ 75 Plaintiffs timely filed a posttrial motion. They challenged, inter alia, the trial court’s 

rulings on defendant’s motion in limine Nos. 10 and 14 and the trial court’s refusal to instruct the 
2021 IL App (2d) 200462-U 

- 21 - 

jury in accordance with IPI Civil No. 30.23. Following briefing and argument, the trial court denied 

the posttrial motion in a July 16, 2020, memorandum of decision and order. 

¶ 76 Regarding defendant’s motion in limine No. 10, the trial court ruled that it properly barred 

Dr. Levin from testifying that defendant breached the standard of care by not consulting with an 

electrophysiologist or other physician regarding the EMG, as “[t]here simply was nothing which 

supported that the failure to consult caused or contributed to plaintiff’s injuries.” While plaintiffs 

argued that Dr. Allen supplied the causal link, the trial court noted that there was no Rule 213(f)(3) 

disclosure that Dr. Allen would testify as to what an electrophysiologist or other physician would 

say had defendant consulted; this was not an opinion noted in Dr. Allen’s report; and Dr. Allen did 

not testify as to such an opinion in his discovery deposition. Thus, the trial court reasoned, “[f]rom 

a 213(f)(3) disclosure perspective, there was nothing the court could find or that was offered by 

plaintiff of a properly disclosed opinion of Dr. Allen as to what the electrophysiologist would have 

said if consulted or what, if any, relationship to injuries suffered by the plaintiff there may have 

been.”

¶ 77 Addressing plaintiffs’ reliance upon Dr. Allen’s testimony at his evidence deposition, the 

trial court found that, in addition to the Rule 213(f)(3) disclosure violation, the testimony “at best 

[] goes to what his personal practice would hypothetically be if he was asked about a test he 

performed—he would tell them what was in the report.” Dr. Allen’s testimony “does not bridge 

the proximate cause gap of Dr. Levin’s opinion.” The trial court reasoned that, “[i]f anything, it 

actually confirms the lack of proximate cause for Dr. Levin’s opinion because in this case, the 

testimony was that [defendant] had Dr. Zhang’s report but strongly disagreed with it based on his 

physical exam and other information he possessed.” Indeed, Dr. Allen acknowledged that he could 

not say whether the EMG was more reliable than the physical examination. 
2021 IL App (2d) 200462-U 

- 22 - 

¶ 78 Regarding defendant’s motion in limine No. 14, the trial court ruled that it had properly 

barred Dr. Allen from testifying that the March 13, 2013, surgery was a cause of Philip’s dizziness, 

gait disturbances, and propensity to fall. The trial court observed that this opinion was not disclosed 

in plaintiffs’ Rule 213(f)(3) disclosure or in Dr. Allen’s report, and Dr. Allen did not testify to this 

opinion in his discovery deposition. Indeed, “Dr. Allen at no time was disclosed as having the 

opinion that Mr. Robinson had cervicogenic vertigo as a proximate result of the defendant Dr. 

Alexander’s surgery nor were any bases for such an opinion so much as hinted at.” (Emphasis in 

original.) While Dr. Allen mentioned cervicogenic vertigo in his discovery deposition, he did not 

opine that it was a condition that Philip had. Rather, the reference was to people who had feelings 

or sensations of loss of balance or instability, and “[n]othing about his exam findings tied to his 

comment about cervicogenic vertigo ***.” Dr. Allen did not indicate any bases for his comment 

about cervicogenic vertigo. In sum, the trial court stated, “[t]here simply is no ‘logical corollary’ 

to the disclosed opinion of Dr. Allen.” Thus, the mandatory disclosure requirements of Rule 213 

were not met. 

¶ 79 With respect to its refusal of plaintiffs’ tendered jury instruction pursuant to IPI Civil No. 

30.23, the trial court reasoned that the instruction was not warranted where “there was no evidence 

of nor argument regarding a subsequent provider aggravating the original injury, negligently 

treating the plaintiff or otherwise causing more damage to the plaintiff’s original injury or any new 

damage in addition to it.” The trial court added that the denial of the tendered instruction “in no 

way curtailed the plaintiff’s ability to put in and argue both economic and non-economic damages 

nor for the jury to have awarded all damages sought should they have found in favor of the 

plaintiff.”

¶ 80 Following the denial of their posttrial motion, plaintiffs timely appealed. 
2021 IL App (2d) 200462-U 

- 23 - 

¶ 81 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 82 Plaintiffs first argue that the trial court erred by precluding certain testimony from their 

controlled expert witnesses. Namely, they contend that the trial court erroneously barred Dr. Levin

from opining that defendant deviated from the standard of care by not consulting with Dr. Zhang

(the neurologist who conducted the February 5, 2013, EMG) before rejecting the diagnosis of ulnar 

nerve entrapment. They also contend that the trial court erroneously barred Dr. Allen from opining 

that defendant’s negligence caused Philip to suffer from dizziness, gait instability, and falls. Next, 

plaintiffs challenge the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury in accordance with IPI Civil No. 

30.23. As a final matter, plaintiffs argue that, individually or cumulatively, the alleged errors 

require a new trial. We address each argument in turn. 

¶ 83 A. Preclusion of Controlled Expert Witness Testimony 

¶ 84 Supreme Court Rule 213(f)(3) requires parties, upon written interrogatory, to identify, inter 

alia, the subject matter on which a controlled expert witness will testify, the conclusions and 

opinions of the witness and the bases therefor, and any reports prepared by the witness about the 

case. Ill. S. Ct. R. 213(f)(3) (eff. Jan. 1, 2007). The parties have a continuing duty to inform the 

opponent of new or additional information that becomes known to the party. Ill. S. Ct. R. 213(i) 

(eff. Jan. 1, 2007). Rule 213(g) limits witness testimony at trial to the information disclosed in 

answer to a Rule 213(f) interrogatory or in a discovery deposition. Ill. S. Ct. R. 213(g) (eff. Jan. 1, 

2007). Upon objection, the burden is on the proponent of the witness to prove the information was 

provided in a Rule 213(f) answer or in a discovery deposition. Id. A party’s Rule 213 disclosures 

must “ ‘drop down’ to specifics.” Sullivan v. Edward Hospital, 209 Ill. 2d 100, 109 (2004). While 

an expert witness may elaborate upon a disclosed opinion, the testimony must state a “logical 

corollary” to the disclosed opinion, and not a new basis for the opinion. Morrisroe v. Pantano, 
2021 IL App (2d) 200462-U 

- 24 - 

2016 IL App (1st) 143605, ¶ 37. In other words, the witness’s testimony must be encompassed by 

the original opinion. Id. 

¶ 85 Rule 213 disclosure requirements are mandatory and subject to strict compliance. Sullivan, 

209 Ill. 2d at 109. The purpose of these discovery rules is “ ‘to avoid surprise and to discourage 

strategic gamesmanship.’ ” [Citation.] Wilson v. Moon, 2019 IL App (1st) 173065, ¶ 33; see also

Ill. S. Ct. R. 213(k), Committee Comments (rev. March 28, 2002) (stating, inter alia, that “[t]he 

application of this rule is intended to do substantial justice between the parties” and “is intended 

to be a shield to prevent unfair surprise but not a sword to prevent the admission of relevant 

evidence on the basis of technicalities”).

¶ 86 A trial court’s ruling on the admission of evidence is discretionary and will not be reversed 

absent an abuse of that discretion. Sullivan, 209 Ill. 2d at 109. “An abuse of discretion occurs only 

when the trial court’s decision is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable or where no reasonable person 

would take the view adopted by the trial court.” Seymour v. Collins, 2015 IL 118432, ¶ 41. Even 

if an abuse of discretion occurred, we will not reverse the judgment unless “ ‘the record indicates 

the existence of substantial prejudice affecting the outcome of the trial.’ ” Guski v. Raja, 409 Ill. 

App. 3d 686, 698 (2011) (quoting In re Leona W., 228 Ill. 2d 439, 460 (2008)). 

¶ 87 1. Preclusion of Dr. Levin’s Testimony Regarding Deviation from Standard of Care

¶ 88 Plaintiffs argue that Dr. Levin was improperly precluded from opining that defendant 

should have consulted with Dr. Zhang, and ordered additional tests if the consultation failed to 

resolve defendant’s concerns, before dismissing a diagnosis of ulnar nerve entrapment in favor of 

multilevel spinal surgery. According to plaintiffs, had defendant “held that consultation, a 

reasonably careful neurosurgeon would have performed a less invasive surgery, leading to 

recovery, not injuries.” Defendant responds that the trial court properly barred Dr. Levin’s opinion 
2021 IL App (2d) 200462-U 

- 25 - 

because no expert witness opined that the alleged deviation from the standard of care proximately 

caused Philip’s injuries. Moreover, defendant argues, plaintiffs suffered no prejudice from the 

exclusion of Dr. Levin’s opinion, as the EMG findings were presented to the jury, and Dr. Levin 

testified regarding the diagnosis of ulnar nerve entrapment. As set forth below, a review of the 

record demonstrates that the trial court’s preclusion of Dr. Levin’s opinion was not an abuse of 

discretion. We therefore do not reach defendant’s alternative argument that plaintiffs suffered no 

prejudice from the ruling.

¶ 89 Initially, plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred in finding a Rule 213(f)(3) disclosure 

violation. They argue that Dr. Levin’s excluded opinion was a logical corollary “to his testimony 

that defendant deviated from the standard of care by not calling the neurologist to discuss the 

varying diagnoses.” However, there was no challenge to the timely disclosure of Dr. Levin’s 

opinion and no ruling by the trial court that his opinion was not disclosed. Rather, the issue was 

that Dr. Levin’s disclosed opinion failed to link his criticism to Philip’s injuries and was thus 

inadmissible. Plaintiffs relied upon Dr. Allen’s testimony at both his discovery and evidence 

deposition to fill the proximate-cause gap. Of course, testimony at an evidence deposition would 

be too late, as Rule 213(g) limits witness testimony at trial to the information disclosed in answer 

to a Rule 213(f) interrogatory or in a discovery deposition. Ill. S. Ct. R. 213(g) (eff. Jan. 1, 2007). 

That was the point of the trial court’s statement, in its order denying plaintiffs’ posttrial motion, 

that there was a Rule 213(f)(3) disclosure violation with respect to Dr. Allen.

¶ 90 Plaintiffs nonetheless maintain that Dr. Allen’s testimony at his evidence deposition was a 

logical corollary “to his other disclosed opinions.” Plaintiffs do not identify the previously 

disclosed opinions to which they refer. Regardless, however, we hold that the trial court did not 
2021 IL App (2d) 200462-U 

- 26 - 

abuse its discretion in determining that no expert testimony, timely or untimely, established a 

causal connection between the alleged deviation from the standard of care and Philip’s injuries.

¶ 91 To prevail in a medical negligence action, a plaintiff must prove: (1) the standard of care 

against which the medical professional’s conduct must be measured; (2) that the defendant was

negligent by failing to comply with that standard; and (3) that the defendant’s negligence 

proximately caused the injuries for which the plaintiff seeks redress. Freeman v. Crays, 2018 IL 

App (2d) 170169, ¶ 21. “The traditional statement of proximate cause requires plaintiff to prove 

that defendant’s negligence ‘more probably than not’ caused plaintiff’s injury.” Holton v. 

Memorial Hospital, 176 Ill. 2d 95, 107 (1997) (quoting Borowski v. Von Solbring, 60 Ill. 2d 418, 

424 (1975)). Proximate cause must be established by expert testimony to a reasonable degree of 

medical certainty, and the causal connection must not be contingent, speculative, or merely 

possible. Freeman, 2018 IL App (2d) 170169, ¶ 36. 

¶ 92 In this regard, “[a]n expert opinion is only as valid as the reasons for the opinion. When 

there is no factual support for an expert’s conclusions, the conclusions alone do not create a 

question of fact.” Aguilera v. Mount Sinai Hospital Medical Center, 293 Ill. App. 3d 967, 974 

(1997). Thus, “[w]hile testimony grounded in ‘expert analysis of the known physical facts’ is 

welcomed, conclusory opinions based on sheer, unsubstantiated speculation should be considered 

irrelevant.” Wiedenbeck v. Searle, 385 Ill. App. 3d 289, 293 (2008).

¶ 93 For instance, in Aguilera, the plaintiff presented expert testimony at trial from an 

emergency room physician and a neurologist that the decedent’s emergency room physician 

deviated from the standard of care by failing to order an immediate CT scan and that an immediate 

CT scan would have allowed surgical intervention that may have saved the patient’s life. Aguilera, 

293 Ill. App. 3d at 969-70. However, the emergency room physician acknowledged that he would 
2021 IL App (2d) 200462-U 

- 27 - 

have deferred to a neurosurgeon to determine the appropriateness of surgical intervention, and the 

neurologist acknowledged that he did not know whether surgical intervention would have been 

ordered had a prompt CT scan been administered. Id. Moreover, both testifying neurosurgeons 

agreed that, even with an earlier CT scan, surgery would not have been appropriate or ordered 

because the patient’s bleed was deep within his brain. Id. at 975. 

¶ 94 The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s entry of judgment for defendant 

notwithstanding the verdict. Id. at 974-75. Noting the lack of a sufficient factual basis for the expert 

testimony, the court reasoned, “[t]he absence of expert testimony that, under the appropriate 

standard of care, an analysis of an earlier CT scan would have led to surgical intervention or other 

treatment that may have contributed to the decedent’s recovery creates a gap in the evidence of 

proximate cause fatal to plaintiff’s case.” Id. at 975; see also Wiedenbeck, 385 Ill. App. 3d at 298-

99 (expert testimony that an urgent-care doctor deviated from the standard of care by failing to 

order a CT scan failed to establish proximate cause where there was no expert testimony that an 

analysis of the CT scan would have led to earlier surgical intervention).

¶ 95 Likewise, here, the trial court was well within its discretion in finding Dr. Levin’s opinion 

inadmissible. Plaintiffs state that they proffered Dr. Levin’s opinion to establish the standard of 

care—“how a reasonably careful neurosurgeon should have acted.” Dr. Levin testified at his 

discovery deposition regarding his opinion as to defendant’s deviation from the standard of care 

by not consulting about the EMG. However, Dr. Levin explicitly acknowledged that he did not 

know what would have been said in the consultation: “How could I know that?” He testified that 

he would “absolutely” have to speculate on the subject. Moreover, Dr. Levin had no opinion as to 

what a repeat EMG would have shown. Accordingly, the trial court excluded Dr. Levin’s opinion, 

finding no basis to support that the failure to consult regarding the EMG caused or contributed to 
2021 IL App (2d) 200462-U 

- 28 - 

Philip’s injuries. Given the conclusory and speculative nature of Dr. Levin’s testimony, we cannot 

say that this ruling was an abuse of discretion. See Aguilera, 293 Ill. App. 3d at 974; Wiedenbeck, 

385 Ill. App. 3d at 293. 

¶ 96 Plaintiffs dispute that Dr. Levin’s testimony was speculative, citing this court’s 

unpublished decision in Williams v. Rockford Health Physicians, 2021 IL App (2d) 200353-U. 

The issue there was whether the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate a causal 

connection between the defendant pediatrician’s failure to timely refer the patient to a pediatric 

gastroenterologist for an evaluation for chronic constipation. Id. ¶¶ 2-4. In reversing the trial 

court’s entry of judgment for the defendant notwithstanding the verdict in the plaintiff’s favor, we 

reasoned, inter alia, that the expert testimony presented by the plaintiff established to reasonable 

degree of medical certainty that, had the referral occurred, it would have led to a diagnosis of 

Hirschsprung’s disease and prompted the necessary surgical intervention to occur years earlier. Id.

¶ 91. Here, however, there was no such comparable expert testimony presented. To the contrary, 

Dr. Levin explicitly acknowledged that he did not know what would have been said in the 

consultation and would have to speculate on the subject. Accordingly, Williams is inapposite.

¶ 97 Equally unavailing is plaintiffs’ reliance upon the dissenting opinion in Seef v. Ingalls 

Memorial Hospital, 311 Ill. App. 3d 7 (1999). Seef was a medical malpractice action in which the 

plaintiffs sued a doctor and hospital for the wrongful death of their stillborn child. Seef, 311 Ill. 

App. 3d at 9-10. The trial court granted the hospital’s motion in limine to bar expert testimony that 

the hospital nurses deviated from the standard of care by failing to advise the doctor of the fetal 

monitoring results and subsequently dismissed the hospital on the basis of that ruling. Id. at 11-12. 

The appellate court affirmed, reasoning that the proffered expert testimony was speculative and 

inadequate to establish proximate cause where the doctor testified that he would not have done 
2021 IL App (2d) 200462-U 

- 29 - 

anything differently had the nurses informed him of the fetal monitoring results. Id. at 15-17. The 

dissenting Justice reasoned that it was error to remove the decision as to causation from the jury 

where the plaintiffs introduced expert testimony regarding the nurses’ deviation from the standard 

of care as well as expert testimony that the deviations were a proximate cause of the child’s death. 

Id. at 26-27 (O’Mara Frossard, P.J., dissenting). The dissenting Justice disagreed that the doctor’s 

testimony broke the causal link between the nurses’ deviations and the child’s death. Id. at 28 

(O’Mara Frossard, P.J., dissenting). This opinion is not helpful to plaintiffs because a causal link 

between the failure to consult and Philip’s injuries was never established in the first instance.

¶ 98 Plaintiffs nevertheless argue that Dr. Allen’s testimony bridged any proximate-cause gap 

in Dr. Levin’s testimony. At his discovery deposition, Dr. Allen testified about the reliability of 

EMGs and the findings with respect to the February 5, 2013, EMGs. He offered no opinion, 

however, as to what would have been said or recommended had a consultation about the EMG 

occurred. At his evidence deposition, plaintiffs’ counsel questioned Dr. Allen as to whether he has 

had the occasion, as a neurologist “involved with EMGs over the years in your career,” to answer 

an ordering physician’s questions about his EMG interpretations. Over defendant’s Rule 213 

objection, Dr. Allen responded affirmatively and explained:

“If I were performing the test and I was asked for my interpretation, I would just 

simply tell them what I said in the report. If they asked me what it meant, I would provide

an interpretation of what it meant, I would provide an interpretation of what it means. If I 

examined the patient and I read the report, I would give them my interpretation of both my 

examination as well as my report, my review of the report.”

¶ 99 The trial court found this testimony insufficient to establish the causal connection missing 

from Dr. Levin’s opinion. Rather, the trial court found, “at best,” Dr. Allen’s testimony amounted 
2021 IL App (2d) 200462-U 

- 30 - 

to inadmissible personal-practice testimony. “Personal-practice testimony is testimony by a 

medical expert concerning how he himself typically performs the treatment at issue.” Swift v. 

Schleicher, 2017 IL App (2d) 170218, ¶ 81. Such testimony is “not universally admissible.” Id.

“Rather, personal-practice testimony is admissible if it is relevant to the credibility of an expert 

testifying to the standard of care or, in limited instances, if it affirmatively elucidates the expert’s 

opinion of the standard of care.” Id. Stated otherwise, personal-practice testimony is relevant for 

the purpose of impeachment when the expert’s own personal practice is inconsistent with the 

expert’s proffered standard-of-care testimony. Id. ¶ 83.

¶ 100 Plaintiffs dispute the characterization of Dr. Allen’s testimony as personal-practice 

testimony. Plaintiffs state that Dr. Allen “was not even giving an opinion.” Rather, he “was talking 

about a fact.” Fact testimony of an expert pertains to the expert’s personal knowledge of the facts 

themselves, as opposed to what the expert thinks, believes, or infers with respect to the disputed 

facts. Prairie v. Snow Valley Health Resources, Inc., 324 Ill. App. 3d 568, 577 (2001). Dr. Allen’s 

testimony did not involve his personal knowledge of the facts. Rather, he answered the 

hypothetical question posed as to what he would do if he were “performing the test” and “asked 

for my interpretation.” Dr. Allen explained that his practice would be to provide an interpretation 

of the examination and report. This is quintessential personal-practice testimony “concerning how 

he himself typically performs” with respect to EMG interpretations. See Swift, 2017 IL App (2d) 

170218, ¶ 81.

¶ 101 Plaintiffs also contend that Dr. Allen’s “proffered testimony would have addressed Dr. 

Levin’s credibility and the persuasiveness of his testimony.” It is unclear how Dr. Allen’s

testimony regarding his personal practice would address Dr. Levin’s credibility or persuasiveness. 

Moreover, Dr. Allen’s testimony would not have been relevant for impeachment purposes where 
2021 IL App (2d) 200462-U 

- 31 - 

the testimony was not offered to show an inconsistency between Dr. Allen’s own personal practice 

and his opinion testimony. See Swift, 2017 IL App (2d) 170218, ¶ 83. In other words, Dr. Allen 

did not testify to a standard of care that he did not emulate in his personal practice. Nor did his 

testimony affirmatively elucidate his opinion on the standard of care. Accordingly, the trial court

was well within its discretion in finding that Dr. Allen’s testimony amounted to inadmissible 

personal-practice testimony. 

¶ 102 Moreover, the trial court found that, even if Dr. Allen’s testimony were admissible, the 

testimony failed to bridge the proximate-cause gap of Dr. Levin’s opinion. Dr. Allen testified that

he “would simply tell them what [he] said in the report” and “provide an interpretation.” However, 

the trial court pointed out, defendant had Dr. Zhang’s report but disagreed with it based on his 

physical examination and other information. Dr. Allen acknowledged that he could not say whether 

the EMG was more reliable than the physical examination. Thus, the trial court reasoned, if 

anything, Dr. Allen’s testimony confirmed the lack of proximate cause for Dr. Levin’s opinion. 

Based upon our review of the record, we cannot say that this determination was an abuse of 

discretion. 

¶ 103 In sum, plaintiffs failed to disclose an expert opinion linking the alleged consultation 

deviation set forth in Dr. Levin’s opinion to Philip’s injuries. Absent a showing that a deviation 

from the standard of care proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries, expert testimony regarding 

the deviation is not relevant and thus properly excluded. See Biundo v. Bolton, 2020 IL App (1st) 

191970, ¶ 30 (no abuse of discretion in excluding expert’s opinion that the defendants deviated 

from the standard of care by discharging the patient without first obtaining a psychiatric evaluation 

where the expert conceded that he could only speculate as to the outcome of the evaluation and 

thus the foundation to opine on proximate cause was lacking); Guski, 409 Ill. App. 3d at 701-02 
2021 IL App (2d) 200462-U 

- 32 - 

(no abuse of discretion in excluding expert’s opinion on charting deficiencies where there was no 

evidence that a failure to chart caused the patient’s death). Accordingly, the trial court did not 

abuse its discretion in precluding Dr. Levin from testifying that defendant deviated from the 

standard of care by not consulting regarding the EMG.

¶ 104 2. Preclusion of Dr. Allen’s Testimony Regarding Undisclosed Opinion

¶ 105 Plaintiffs argue that the trial court abused its discretion in barring Dr. Allen from testifying 

that defendant’s negligence caused Philip to experience dizziness, gait instability, or a propensity 

to fall. According to plaintiffs, Dr. Allen should have been allowed to testify at trial that Philip’s 

issues could have been caused by cervicogenic vertigo as a result of the March 13, 2013, surgery. 

Defendant argues that the trial court properly barred the testimony on the ground that it was not 

disclosed in discovery and thus inadmissible pursuant to Rule 213(g). Moreover, defendant argues, 

plaintiffs cannot establish prejudice from the preclusion of Dr. Allen’s testimony because the jury 

never reached the issue of damages, as demonstrated by its general verdict in defendant’s favor. 

See Dabros v. Wang, 243 Ill. App. 3d 259, 269 (1993) (where a defendant is found not liable, 

alleged error pertaining to damages does not afford grounds for reversal). As set forth below, a 

review of the record demonstrates that the trial court’s preclusion of Dr. Allen’s testimony was not 

an abuse of discretion. We therefore need not address defendant’s argument that plaintiffs suffered 

no prejudice from the ruling.

¶ 106 Initially, plaintiffs posit that Dr. Allen’s opinion was in fact affirmatively disclosed in 

discovery. They cite the notation in Dr. Allen’s March 9, 2017, report regarding Philip’s account 

of dizziness and falling and Dr. Allen’s testimony at his discovery deposition that dizziness could 

be attributable to cervicogenic vertigo, and not to a nerve root injury. According to plaintiffs, 

“[e]veryone knew that Philip suffered from dizziness, gait problems and falls,” and Dr. Allen 
2021 IL App (2d) 200462-U 

- 33 - 

“simply tried to explain why Philip had this problem.” This argument fails to acknowledge that 

Dr. Allen’s proffered explanation—his opinion that Philip’s “problem” could be attributable to 

cervicogenic vertigo as a result of the March 13, 2013, surgery—was not disclosed in discovery, 

as reflected by a review of Dr. Allen’s report and discovery deposition testimony. Rather, he 

proffered this opinion for the first time at his evidence deposition—six days before trial. 

¶ 107 It was undisputed that Dr. Allen never observed Philip in a state of dizziness, gait 

instability, or falling, and never diagnosed Philip with cervicogenic vertigo. In his discovery 

deposition, Dr. Allen discussed cervicogenic vertigo generally and explained that the condition is 

“seen in people who have feelings and perceptions of loss of balance or instability who have neck 

problems because of what’s known as the tectospinal pathway ***.” This general information did 

not satisfy Rule 213(f)(3)’s disclosure requirements. See Northern League of Professional 

Baseball Teams v. Gozdecki, Del Giudice, Americus & Farkas, LLP, 2018 IL App (1st) 172407, ¶ 

52 (general statements and catch-all phrases unconnected to a specific opinion generally do not 

comply with Rule 213’s disclosure requirements). Dr. Allen was never disclosed in discovery as 

having the opinion that cervicogenic vertigo caused Philip’s problem, that the condition was a 

proximate result of the March 13, 2013, surgery, or that defendant’s negligence caused Philip to 

experience dizziness, gait instability, or a propensity to fall. As the trial court concluded, Dr. Allen 

never diagnosed Philip with cervicogenic vertigo, and, moreover, “Dr. Allen at no time was 

disclosed as having the opinion that Mr. Robinson had cervicogenic vertigo as a proximate result 

of the defendant Dr. Alexander’s surgery nor were any bases for such an opinion so much as hinted 

at” and “[n]othing about his exam findings tied to his comment about cervicogenic vertigo ***.” 

(Emphasis in original.) A party’s Rule 213 disclosures must “ ‘drop down’ to specifics.” Sullivan, 

209 Ill. 2d at 109. There was no such specificity here. 
2021 IL App (2d) 200462-U 

- 34 - 

¶ 108 Plaintiffs nevertheless argue that Dr. Allen’s opinion about the cause of Philip’s dizziness, 

gait problems, and falls was a logical corollary of “earlier disclosures.” Plaintiffs again rely upon 

the reports of Philip’s dizziness, gait instability, and propensity to fall; Dr. Allen’s general 

discussion of cervicogenic vertigo at his discovery deposition; and Dr. Allen’s testimony that 

dizziness could be attributable to cervicogenic vertigo.

¶ 109 As discussed, while an expert witness may elaborate upon a previously disclosed opinion

at trial, the testimony must be encompassed by the original opinion, or state a logical corollary to 

the original opinion, and not a new basis for the opinion. Compare Lopez v. Northwestern 

Memorial Hospital, 375 Ill. App. 3d 637, 645-46 (2007) (expert witness’s opinion at trial that 

injury occurred “at least an hour before the delivery” introduced a new theory where the expert 

had merely opined in his discovery deposition that the injury occurred “during the intrapartum 

period”), and Prairie, 324 Ill. App. 3d at 576-77 (the defendant physician’s opinion at trial that the 

standard of care required that the patient be “assessed” three times daily was not encompassed by 

his pretrial disclosure that the patient’s “vital signs were to be taken” three times daily) with 

Spaetzel v. Dillon, 393 Ill. App. 3d 806, 812-13 (2009) (expert witness’s opinion at trial regarding 

his interpretation of CT scans was an elaboration on, or a logical corollary to, the witness’s 

previously disclosed opinion that was based upon “all the relevant medical records and diagnostic 

studies”).

¶ 110 Here, as in Lopez and Prairie, the opinion advanced by Dr. Allen for the first time in his 

evidence deposition about the cause of Philip’s dizziness, gait problems, and falls presented a new

theory (here a new damages theory) and was not encompassed by his pretrial disclosures. To the 

contrary, Dr. Allen testified for the first time at his evidence deposition that Philip “might or could 

have cervicogenic vertigo as a result of the cervical procedure that disrupted the stability of the 
2021 IL App (2d) 200462-U 

- 35 - 

cervical spine during the procedure of March and the subsequent procedure by Dr. Nockels in 

2013.” This opinion marked a considerable addition to the opinions on causation and injuries set 

forth in his March 9, 2017, report and about which he testified in his discovery deposition, 

including his general discussion of cervicogenic vertigo and its attributions. In sum, plaintiffs 

failed to establish that Dr. Allen’s opinion about the cause of Philip’s dizziness, gait problems, and 

falls was a logical corollary to a previously disclosed opinion. Rule 213 disclosure requirements 

are mandatory and subject to strict compliance. Sullivan, 209 Ill. 2d at 109. Accordingly, we cannot 

say that the trial court’s preclusion of Dr. Allen’s testimony was arbitrary, fanciful, or 

unreasonable, or that no reasonable person would take the trial court’s view. See Seymour, 2015 

IL 118432, ¶ 41.

¶ 111 Notwithstanding, plaintiffs contend that the trial court’s “concerns” regarding the 

insufficiency of the disclosure of Dr. Allen’s opinion “should have been addressed through 

vigorous cross-examination.” This argument ignores the underlying purposes of Rule 213’s 

requirements—to avoid surprise and discourage strategic gamesmanship. See Wilson, 2019 IL App 

(1st) 173065, ¶ 33; Ill. S. Ct. R. 213(k), Committee Comments (rev. March 28, 2002). As we 

reasoned in Prairie in rejecting the argument that failure to impeach a witness when the witness 

offers an undisclosed opinion forfeits a Rule 213 objection, “[t]his rule would eviscerate Rule 

213,” as “[t]he proponent of an opinion would be free to disregard the rule, knowing that the only 

sanction for a violation would be the possibility of impeachment.” Prairie, 324 Ill. App. 3d at 579.

The trial court’s preclusion of Dr. Allen’s opinion was not an abuse of discretion. 

¶ 112 B. IPI Civil No. 30.23

¶ 113 Plaintiffs argue that the trial court erroneously refused to instruct the jury in accordance 

with IPI Civil No. 30.23. As discussed, plaintiffs’ tendered instruction provided: 
2021 IL App (2d) 200462-U 

- 36 - 

“If a defendant negligently causes injury to the plaintiff, then the defendant is liable 

not only for the plaintiff’s damages resulting from that injury but is also liable for any 

damages sustained by the plaintiff arising from the efforts of health care providers to treat 

the injury caused by the defendant even if those health care providers were negligent.”

¶ 114 A party has the “right to have the jury instructed on his or her theory of the case if the facts 

in evidence or a reasonable inference from those facts supports the theory.” Tsoukas v. Lapid, 315 

Ill. App. 3d 372, 377 (2000). The trial court’s determination of which instructions to give the jury 

is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Schultz v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad 

Corp., 201 Ill. 2d 260, 273 (2002). “The standard for deciding whether a trial court abused its 

discretion is whether, taken as a whole, the instructions fairly, fully, and comprehensively apprised 

the jury of the relevant legal principles.” Id. at 273-74. 

¶ 115 Initially, defendant argues that plaintiffs forfeited their argument by failing to comply with 

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020) (an argument must “contain the 

contentions of the appellant and the reasons therefor, with citation of the authorities and the pages 

of the record relied on”). Specifically, according to defendants, plaintiffs violate Rule 341(h)(7) 

by advancing an “abbreviated, three-sentence description of the claimed basis for the instruction, 

without specific citation or even a reference to the trial testimony” and failing to cite case law 

addressing IPI Civil No. 30.23—the consequence of which should be forfeiture of the issue on 

appeal. See Hall v. Naper Gold Hospitality LLC, 2012 IL App (2d) 111151, ¶ 12 (“Mere 

contentions, without argument or citation to authority, do not merit consideration on appeal.”). 

Although we agree that plaintiffs advance a perfunctory analysis of the issue, the deficiencies to 

which defendant cites are not “so flagrant as to hinder or preclude review.” (Internal quotation 
2021 IL App (2d) 200462-U 

- 37 - 

marks omitted.) See Carter v. Carter, 2012 IL App (1st) 110855, ¶ 12. We therefore decline to 

deem plaintiffs’ argument forfeited. See id. 

¶ 116 Defendant also argues that the propriety of the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury in 

accordance with IPI Civil No. 30.23 is merely “academic” because plaintiff cannot establish that 

the refusal of the instruction impacted the verdict. According to defendant, the instruction prompts 

a jury to consider the issue of damages caused by subsequent healthcare providers only if it finds 

that the defendant negligently caused injury to the plaintiff. Here, the jury returned a verdict in 

defendant’s favor; thus, defendant argues, the jury never reached the issue of damages. Indeed, 

defendant points out, the jury was instructed that “[i]f you decide for the defendant on the question 

of liability, you will have no occasion to consider the question of damages as to the defendant.” 

See Illinois Pattern Jury Instruction, Civil, No. 36.01 (“In Absence of Liability—No Occasion to 

Consider Damages”).

¶ 117 Plaintiffs respond that the same argument was rejected by the appellate court in Beard v. 

Barron, 379 Ill. App. 3d 1 (2008). There, the plaintiff maintained her challenge to the erroneous 

refusal of her tendered instruction pursuant to IPI Civil No. 30.23, notwithstanding the jury’s 

verdict for the defendants. Id. at 18. The plaintiff argued that the instruction was not strictly a 

damages instruction and that the failure to give the instruction may have led to juror confusion as 

to the applicable law. Id. The appellate court agreed and addressed (although ultimately rejected) 

the merits of the plaintiff’s argument, reasoning that the Comments to IPI Civil No. 30.23 “support 

the plaintiff’s position that the instruction may have an impact on a jury beyond damages because 

[a] jury might perceive the subsequent provider as the wrongdoer and acquit[] the defendant on 

that basis.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. Likewise, here, we address, but reject, the merits 

of plaintiffs’ argument. 
2021 IL App (2d) 200462-U 

- 38 - 

¶ 118 Plaintiffs argue that the trial court erroneously refused their tendered instruction. 

According to plaintiffs, the trial court rejected the instruction on the ground that there was no 

evidence that the doctors who treated Philip after his March 13, 2013, surgery were negligent.

However, plaintiffs contend, regardless of whether the subsequent treaters (Dr. Nockels and Dr. 

Bednar) were negligent, the evidence established that their efforts to treat Philip resulted in further 

damages. Thus, plaintiffs contend that they were entitled to the tendered instruction. Defendants 

respond that IPI Civil No. 30.23 was not warranted in light of the absence of evidence that the 

subsequent treaters caused or aggravated Philip’s injuries. 

¶ 119 Plaintiffs’ argument rests upon a faulty premise—that the trial court refused the tendered 

jury instruction on the ground that there was no evidence that Philip’s subsequent treaters were 

negligent. A review of the record demonstrates that this was not the basis for the trial court’s ruling. 

Rather, both at the jury instruction conference and in its order denying plaintiffs’ posttrial motion, 

the trial court reasoned that the instruction was not warranted in the absence of any evidence that 

Dr. Nockels or Dr. Bednar caused or aggravated Philip’s injuries. 

¶ 120 The Notes on Use to IPI Civil No. 30.23 are illustrative of this distinction in providing that 

the “instruction is intended to be used when there is evidence that a subsequent health care provider 

caused or aggravated the injury” and that the “last bracketed material [even if (that) (those) health 

care provider(s) (was) (were) negligent] should be used when there is a claim that the subsequent 

health care provider was negligent.” IPI Civil No. 30.23, Notes on Use. Here, plaintiffs’ tendered 

instruction included the bracketed material, although at the jury instruction conference, plaintiffs’ 

counsel assented: “I’m fine with crossing out the ‘even if those health providers were negligent,’ 

because there is no evidence that’s been submitted in this case that anybody was negligent. But we 

are entitled to the first part of this instruction under the law and the evidence in this case.” The 
2021 IL App (2d) 200462-U 

- 39 - 

trial court responded: “Based on the committee comments, you’re not.” The trial court proceeded 

to point out the absence of evidence that the subsequent treaters caused or aggravated Philip’s 

injuries. Accordingly, the trial court refused the tendered instruction. A review of the record 

demonstrates that the trial court’s ruling was not an abuse its discretion.

¶ 121 In addition to the Notes on use, the Comments to IPI Civil No. 30.23 provide: “If the issue 

of the subsequent medical provider having caused or aggravated an injury is injected into the case, 

there is a likelihood the jury may be confused as to the applicable law. The jury might perceive 

the subsequent provider as the wrongdoer and ‘acquit[] the defendants on that basis.’ ” IPI Civil 

No. 30.23, Comments (quoting Kolakowski v. Voris, 94 Ill. App. 3d 404, 413 (1981)). The 

Comments continue: “This proposition is not necessarily obvious and should be told to the jury” 

(see Daly v. Carmean, 210 Ill. App. 3d 19, 30 (1991) (citing Gertz v. Campbell, 55 Ill. 2d 84, 90 

(1973))), as “[n]o other instruction tells the jury that the defendant, if culpable, is liable for 

damages caused by the subsequent health care provider’s conduct.” IPI Civil No. 30.23, 

Comments.

¶ 122 However, the instruction is not warranted in the absence of evidence that the subsequent 

health care provider caused or aggravated the injury. IPI Civil No. 30.23, Notes on Use. Our 

supreme court’s decision in Holton is instructive. Holton, 176 Ill. 2d at 131-32. In addressing the 

“loss-of-chance” doctrine in medical malpractice cases (which “refers to the injury sustained by a 

plaintiff whose medical providers are alleged to have negligently deprived the plaintiff of a chance 

to survive or recover from a health problem, or where the malpractice has lessened the 

effectiveness of treatment or increased the risk of an unfavorable outcome to the plaintiff”), the 

court in Holton held that traditional principles of proximate cause are satisfied by the loss-ofchance concept. Id. at 111, 119-20. In remanding for a new trial, the court in Holton also addressed
2021 IL App (2d) 200462-U 

- 40 - 

the propriety of the following instruction proposed by the plaintiff (prior to the implementation of 

IPI Civil No. 30.23): 

“If a health care provider is guilty of professional negligence which creates a 

condition of the plaintiff’s body, then the health care provider is liable not only for 

plaintiff’s damages resulting from that condition, but also liable for any damages sustained 

by the plaintiff arising from the efforts of subsequent health care providers to treat the 

condition caused by the initial health care provider.” Id. at 131. 

¶ 123 The court held that the facts of the case did not support “the giving of an instruction

involving the aggravation of an original tortfeasor’s injury by subsequent medical malpractice.” 

Id. at 132. In doing so, the court distinguished Gertz and Daly, which involved circumstances 

“where an initial tortfeasor was legally responsible for subsequent aggravation of the original 

injury caused by the initial tortfeasor.” Id. (citing Gertz, 55 Ill. 2d 84; Daly, 210 Ill. App. 3d 19); 

see also Beard, 379 Ill. App. 3d at 18-19 (holding that the trial court properly rejected the plaintiff’s 

tendered instruction pursuant to IPI Civil No. 30.23 where there was no evidence of subsequent 

treatment causing or aggravating an injury or of subsequent medical negligence).

¶ 124 Plaintiffs acknowledge that the subsequent treating physicians “did not cause any injuries” 

but assert that they “aggravated the previous injuries by causing Philip addition pain and suffering, 

disability, and scarring” and that “their efforts to treat Philip for his injuries caused by the 

defendant caused him to sustain damages.” (Emphasis in original.) Plaintiffs, however, provide no 

supporting record citation. Rather, they assert that the extensive nature of the subsequent surgeries 

and the resulting additional pain and suffering were undisputed.

¶ 125 Plaintiffs’ assertion circumvents the issue. As the trial court noted, the denial of the 

tendered instruction “in no way curtailed the plaintiff’s ability to put in and argue both economic 
2021 IL App (2d) 200462-U 

- 41 - 

and non-economic damages nor for the jury to have awarded all damages sought should they have 

found in favor of the plaintiff.” The point here is that there were no facts to support instruction of 

the jury pursuant to IPI Civil No. 30.23. Thus, as the Notes on Use to IPI Civil No. 30.23 elucidate, 

the instruction was not warranted: “This instruction is intended to be used when there is evidence 

that a subsequent health care provider caused or aggravated the injury.” Plaintiffs cite to no 

evidence that Dr. Nockels or Dr. Bednar caused or aggravated Philip’s injuries. To the contrary,

defendant acknowledged that Dr. Nockels took a reasonable approach in his surgery. And 

plaintiffs’ counsel argued in closing that Dr. Nockels “did a wonderful job of saving [Philip’s] 

spinal cord and his nerve roots from any further damage” and that Dr. Bednar improved Philip’s 

hand function with a tendon transfer. In the absence of any evidence that the subsequent health 

care providers caused or aggravated Philip’s injury, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in 

refusing plaintiffs’ proposed jury instruction pursuant to IPI Civil No. 30.23. 

¶ 126 C. Lack of Error or Cumulative Error

¶ 127 As a final matter, plaintiffs argue that the purported evidentiary and instructional errors

therefore “cumulatively require a new trial” given the “close” nature of the case. However, as 

discussed, we find no error. We therefore necessarily find no cumulative error. See Department of 

Transportation v. Dalzell, 2018 IL App (2d) 160911, ¶ 127. Accordingly, we reject plaintiffs’ 

argument. 

¶ 128 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 129 For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Winnebago County.

¶ 130 Affirmed.